Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
A response dated 2/17/2026 includes Applicant's election of Group I drawn to an
election solution, a species of NH4+ as the M1, and difluoro vinyl carbonate as the cosolvent. Claims 1, 2-15 read on Applicant's election. Claims 2, 16-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
A response dated 6/30/2026 includes Applicant’s election of V for M2.
Full consideration was given to claims 1, 3-15.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 6/12/2023, 7/13/2023, 7/2/2025 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received 6/12/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano (US 2013/0260226) in view of Yang (US 2019/0006718).
Regarding claim 1, Sano discloses an electrolytic solution, comprising:
a lithium salt;
an organic solvent; and
an additive [0020].
Regarding claim 9, a content of the lithium salt is in a range of 0.5-2 mol/L, based on a total volume of electrolytic solution [0038].
Regarding claim 10, lithium salt is in a range of 1-2 mol/L, based on the total volume of electrolytic solution [0038].
Regarding claim 1, Sano discloses an electrolyte additive comprising a vanadium salt, wherein the M2 is selected from V. Regarding claim 3, the VB-VIII group elements in the fourth cycle of the periodic table of elements are one or more of V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, and Ni [0020]. Sano discloses that the vanadium salt is not particularly limited to the salt as disclosed in [0020], and exists in the electrolyte as the vanadium compound or the vanadium ion [0020].
Regarding claim 1, Sano does not disclose wherein the additive is a salt with a formula of M1M2xOy, the M1 is NH4+, x is in a range of 0.01-4, and y is in a range of 0.1-9. Yang teaches an electrolyte having an additive that dissociates into vanadate ions [0006]. The additive may be NH4VO3 [0014]. Yang teaches:
Regarding claim 4, the additive is one or more of NH4VO3, KMnO4, Na2FeO4, LiCoO2, NaVO4, NaVO3, K2Cr2O7, and NaCoO2 [0014].
Regarding claim 5, the additive is NH4VO3 or KMnO4 [0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to use Yang’s NH4VO3 as the electrolyte additive of Sano, as taught by Yang, for the benefit of having vanadium ions in the electrolyte.
Regarding claim 8, the additive is added to the electrolytic solution in a form of a nanoparticle, and a particle size of the nanoparticle is in a range of 300-800 nm, the instant Specification states:
[0059] When the additive is added to the electrolytic solution in the form of the nanoparticle, a slightly excessive additive is suspended in the electrolytic solution in the form of the nanoparticle, once the additive is consumed in the charging process to generate the oxide SEI film, the nanoparticle may continue to dissolve during shelving or discharging, making the additive remain saturated again to maintain a long-term cycle demand, thereby further improving cycle performance of the secondary battery.
It appears that nanoparticles are present in the electrolyte once the additive has reached its saturation point of dissolution. The claims do not recite that the additive is present in an amount beyond its saturation amount. Hence, the Examiner notes that the additive is not necessarily present in nanoparticle form in the electrolyte as a final product, as claimed in claim 1 or 8. Hence, the limitation is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. It has been considered but was not given patentable weight because the courts have held that the method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. “[Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from the product of prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Should the additive be present in nanoparticle form in the electrolyte, Sano discloses that the additive vanadium phosphate is formed by hydrothermal synthesis, which forms a small particle size and tends to be excellent in rate performance [0023]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to form the size of the additive, of Sano modified by Yang, as small as possible for the benefit of achieving excellent rate performance, absent persuasive evidence that the claimed nanoparticle size range is critical.
Claim 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano (US 2013/0260226) in view of Yang (US 2019/0006718) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Na (US 2010/0028783).
Regarding claim 12, Sano modified by Yang does not teach the electrolytic solution further comprises a cosolvent. Na teaches adding an ethylene carbonate-based compound to an electrolyte improves the overcharge safety and high-temperature safety while increasing the cycle life of the battery [0024]. Na teaches:
Regarding claim 13, the cosolvent is difluoro vinyl carbonate [0025].
Regarding claim 14, a content of the cosolvent is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 6 weight %, based on a total weight of the electrolytic solution [0048].
Regarding claim 15, the content of the cosolvent is in a range of 1-3 weight %, based on the total weight of the electrolytic solution [0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to add difluoroethylene carbonate to the electrolyte solution of Sano modified by Yang, as taught by Na, for the benefit of increasing the flame resistance of the electrolyte.
Regarding claim 11, organic solvent is in a range of 80-85 weight %, based on a total weight of the electrolytic solution, the amount of the additive can be appropriately determined to improve the cycle life characteristics of the battery [0025]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the amount of the difluoroethylene carbonate, as taught by Na, for the benefit of adjusting the flame resistance of the electrolyte.
It is noted that increasing the content of difluoroethylene carbonate in the electrolyte solution necessarily adjusts the amount of the organic solvent, and the organic solvent is in a range of 80-85 weight % would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan, absent criticality of the claimed range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is Sano (US 2013/0260226). Sano does not disclose nor suggest:
Regarding claim 6, a content of the additive is in a range of 0.01-1 weight % based on a total weight of the electrolytic solution.
Regarding claim 7, the content of the additive is in a range of 0.1-0.5 weight % based on the total weight of the electrolytic solution.
Sano discloses the amount of vanadium of 0.1 ppm to 20 ppm is added to the electrolyte in terms of vanadium ions. The amount of 0.1 ppm to 5 ppm is more preferable, and the amount of 0.2 ppm to 2 ppm is even more preferable. In a case where the amount of vanadium is smaller than 0.1 ppm, the amount of gas generation tends to be large. Also, in a case where the amount of vanadium is equal to or more than 20 ppm, the amount of gas generation becomes large [0020].
Hence, Sano teaches away from the ranges as claimed.
None of the X references cited on the International Search Report discloses or suggests the limitations of claims 6 and 7.
Pertinent Prior Art
Yang (CN 107799825) discloses an electrolyte composition having 10-20 parts of lithium salt, 6-10 parts of 3-cyclohexylbiphenyl, 6-10 parts of 1, 3-diphenylcyclohexylamine, 20-30 parts of crotylcarbonate, 15-25 parts of methyl vinyl carbonate, 15-25 parts of 2-methyltetrahydrofuran, 5-8 parts of vanadium trioxide, 15-24 parts of vanadium pentoxide, 1.6-5.4 parts of mixed additive, 5-16 parts of film formation agent and 3.6-8 parts of flame retardant. See Abstract.
Hence, Yang discloses that the ranges for the vanadium oxide in the electrolyte is between 20-32 parts.
Yang does not disclose nor suggest the ranges as claimed in Applicant’s claims 6 and 7. Yang does not disclose nor suggest reducing the ranges of vanadium oxide to the ranges as claimed by Applicant’s claims 6 and 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA KYUNG SOO WALLS whose telephone number is (571)272-8699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F until 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CYNTHIA K WALLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights